Hi Paolo,
I don't understand why, in your example,
wasGeneratedBy(e1 WITH {port="p1", order=1}, pe1,t1)
the qualifier {port="p1", order=1} is "linked" with the entity,
it's also relevant to the pe ... after all, emitting data on port p1.
Luc
On 09/15/2011 05:05 PM, Paolo Missier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hopefully this is the right place in the thread to inject this idea.
> Following on from the recent call discussion with the ontology group
> on "Role specializes Entity":
>
> I don't see a problem to have role (as one of specific qualifier)
> associated to the Entity, in PROV-ASN this could for example be
> written as: (apologies for the made-up syntax)
>
> wasGeneratedBy(e4 AS attachment,pe2) (from the original:
> wasGeneratedBy(e4,pe2,attachment) )
>
> where attachment specializes Entity.
>
> Similarly:
>
> wasGeneratedBy(e1,pe1,qualifier(port="p1", order=1),t1)
>
> would become:
>
> wasGeneratedBy(e1 WITH {port="p1", order=1}, pe1,t1)
>
> this however assumes that one can always decide which side of the
> wasGeneratedBy relationship the qualifiers belong to. It can be one or
> the other, or both.
>
> how would map to OWL?
>
> --Paolo
>
>
> On 9/15/11 11:02 AM, Simon Miles wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Just to clarify, I understand that specialising used/generated to
>> assert roles makes it hard for roles to have structured information,
>> and that if the implied prov:used/prov:generated relation is not
>> (also) included in a serialisation, non-reasoners will not be able to
>> traverse the provenance graph.
>>
>> I was not advocating that this *should* be done, but that I expect
>> people *will* do to this, especially when they are using their own
>> ontology for describing domain-specific information. Specialisation of
>> properties is surely the normal way to provide more specific
>> information about how things are related, i.e. their roles with regard
>> to each other. I agree it may not be so normal for a generic workflow
>> engine, such as Taverna, where their is no pre-defined domain.
>>
>> The consequence of this may be just to recognise the need for guidance
>> where what we are proposing does not follow the normal way of doing
>> things.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Simon
>>
>> On 10 September 2011 09:45, Graham Klyne<GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't been following this as closely as I should, but I think the
>>> alternative to specializing "used" may be similar to the CRM event-mediated
>>> approach whereby provenance information can be incorporated with data about
>>> things - extra metadata can easily be attached to an "observation" or
>>> "annotation" (or similar) event.
>>>
>>> I think it's a good approach.
>>>
>>> #g
>>> --
>>>
>>> On 09/09/2011 19:51, Daniel Garijo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Stian.
>>>> In first place, thanks for your example. It is very helpful to get things to
>>>> start moving.
>>>> In second place, you are right: the ontology has not been updated yet with
>>>> Satya's proposal
>>>> for modeling roles. I think it is better than specializing the "used"
>>>> property, since it allows
>>>> adding additional information withouth transforming the "Used" property in a
>>>> class (which is the
>>>> way to model n-ary relationchips). If we just specialize the "used"
>>>> property, then we won't be able to
>>>> link the time of usage, the location of usage, or anything additional
>>>> metadata.
>>>>
>>>> However, we are still discussing this approach, because it is true that when
>>>> you don't know
>>>> the role of the used entity, everything might get a bit confusing.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to join us on monday's telecons :)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> 2011/9/9 Stian Soiland-Reyes<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:35, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>>>>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://ns.taverna.org.uk/2011/run/2613aab1-dfe9-4a17-a4be-7589f5d388d6/>
>>>>>
>>>>>> a prov:ProcessExecution;
>>>>>> prov:used [
>>>>>> rdf:type
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://ns.taverna.org.uk/2010/workflow/ea4168eb-67ea-440f-ab73-818da5efc998/processor/String_constant/out/value
>>>>>
>>>>>> prov:assumedBy
>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://ns.taverna.org.uk/2011/data/2613aab1-dfe9-4a17-a4be-7589f5d388d6/ref/153277f1-5e4f-43fc-968d-ab3a8b038676
>>>>>
>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I messed up the direction here - if something was 'used'
>>>>> then the role should of course be an *input* port. Just imagine
>>>>> s/Output/Input/g for the whole thing as it is not possible to edit an
>>>>> email once it's sent. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (I wanted to do the discussion on 'used' rather than 'generated' - as
>>>>> use can naturally occur in several roles in several process execution
>>>>> - and indeed in several roles for the same execution)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>> The University of Manchester
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------- ~oo~ --------------
> Paolo Missier -Paolo.Missier@newcastle.ac.uk,pmissier@acm.org
> School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK
> http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/Paolo.Missier
>
--
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm